Case law

Brandon Backe v. Steven LeBlanc

691 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2012

A district court’s denial of qualified immunity to public officials is exactly such an order. … Consequently, this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to ascertain the availability of that defense.

Jeffrey Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't

130 F.4th 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 2025

And because the Supreme Court had clearly established Hardin’s Brady rights before 1992, the district court found that Thurman could not invoke qualified immunity for this constitutional violation. … Qualified immunity bars courts from imposing monetary liability on officers under § 1983 unless their conduct violated “clearly established” law. District of Columbia v.

Scotia v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm'rs

933 F.3d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Although there need not be “a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate,” or else “officers are entitled to qualified … Qualified immunity, on the other hand, asks a different question: were the officer’s actions “unreasonable” under clearly established law? See id. at 1125–28. Different questions can produce different answers.

V-1 Oil Co. v. Smith

114 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 1997

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not a defense. As such, the justifications for the doctrine of qualified immunity demand that we exercise jurisdiction over Smith’s appeal. See Chateaubriand v. … The law was not clearly established when Smith acted. Qualified immunity insulates Smith from civil liability for his actions. *858 IV We reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment.

Brown v. City of New York

862 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 5, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Brown argues that the two officers “were not entitled to qualified immunity since they violated clearly established law by using substantial and unnecessary force to arrest Ms.

H.A.L. Ex Rel. Lewis v. Foltz

551 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2008

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.6 AFFIRMED. 6 We do not hint about the availability of qualified immunity on summary

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8020, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,778 Sue Kruse and Lance Caspary, on Behalf of Themselves and Their Minor Son Kanoa v. State of Hawai'i

68 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

When a public official asserts qualified immunity from liability in a Sec. 1983 action, we must determine whether (1) the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established and (2) whether under that law, an official … Clearly Established Right 32 While the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" in a "particularized" sense, "this is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified

Parker v. State

337 Md. 271 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1995

In particular, the Court has distinguished between the qualified and narrower immunity for discretionary acts generally accorded to public officials, and absolute judicial immunity, which, unlike qualified immunity, applies … Mele, 267 Md. 437, 444 , 298 A.2d 156, 161 (1972) (contrasting the absolute immunity of judges with the qualified immunity of law enforcement officers); Eliason v.

Eva Garrett, Individually and as Administratrix for the Estate of Linda Kay Johnson, Deceased v. Lloyd Rader and Norman Smith

831 F.2d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 13, 1987

They claim that they are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity to damage liability under Section 1983 because they did not violate any “clearly established” rules relating to the care of mentally retarded children … In addition, the court ruled that the question of qualified immunity should await a development of a factual record.

Zackery Beck v. Hamblen Cty., Tenn.

969 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2020

A Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages (and litigation) unless the official’s conduct violated a “clearly established” legal rule. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … So Kingsley’s effect on Beck’s deliberate-indifference claim (if any) cannot qualify as “clearly established” law under the qualified-immunity test. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 618 (1999).

Alston v. Read

663 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2011

[2] When evaluating a denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, our review is limited to the “purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established law.” … The qualified immunity inquiry is two-pronged. We must ask whether “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether “the right was clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Kevin R. Black v. Al C. Parke, Kenneth Case, Walt Chapleau, and Tom Campbell

4 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 1993

Defendants maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not so clearly established that they would have known that their conduct was unlawful. … However, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper. Poe v.

Reinhardt v. Kopcow

66 F. Supp. 3d 1348 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Post, 574 F.3d 1294, 1300 (10th Cir.2009) (qualified immunity places the burden on the plaintiff to show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation).

Gavrilles v. O'CONNOR

611 F. Supp. 210 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1985

The case is now before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which raises *211 the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Under Harlow v. … The impermissibility of retaliating against an employee for engaging in union activities was clearly established by 1982.

Lewis v. City of Ft. Collins

903 F.2d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 14, 1990

In some cases, discovery may be necessary to determine whether the defendants’ challenged conduct violated clearly established law and thus, whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Objective Reasonableness Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Cannon

80 F.3d 1525 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1996

However, even if Ross were indistinguishable, Seventh Circuit decisions can not clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity in this circuit. E.g., D'Aguanno v. … McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1497-98 & n. 32 (11th Cir.1991) (law can be "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of U.S.

Wells v. Cole

355 F. Supp. 3d 841 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018

that right was clearly established at the time of the employee's firing." … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, "[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours 'must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Tony Velasquez v. John Senko

813 F.2d 1509 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1987

The court found that appellants failed to address the pertinent issue for a claim of qualified immunity: whether the law they were accused of violating was clearly established. … qualified immunity claim meets Cohen "separate from the merits" test because it involves only "legal determination that a given proposition of law was not clearly established"); id.

Robert A. Borucki v. W. Michael Ryan, Etc.

827 F.2d 836 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 27, 1987

Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we hold that Ryan’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of privacy and that he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … Murchek, 766 F.2d 1494 , 1500-01 (11th Cir.l985)(officials had qualified immunity where federal due process rights not clearly established, although state statutory due process rights were clearly established); Powers v.

Chamberlain v. Mathis

151 Ariz. 551 · Arizona Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1986

Because the decisions just cited establish that government executive employees are presumptively entitled to some immunity, our analysis is limited to a comparison of qualified and absolute immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for acts within the scope of their public duties unless the official knew or should have known that he was acting in violation of established law or acted in